CNN Poll: Trump approval slides, matches lowest point of presidency

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Ok, you seem to not understand. Hilary won the popular vote! She won it by 2,865,075. 65,844,954 - 62,979,879 = 2,865,075. Now do tell how this is wrong. 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-Hillary-Clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/official-hillary-clinton-wins-popular-vote-by-29m-958803
http://time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/shades-of-2000-clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally
There are more sources but I do not want to list them. 

Election polls aren't supposed to tell us who is more popular, they're supposed to tell us who will win an election.  No one cares who is more popular in an election if they are going to lose.  Nate Silver wasn't reporting on the candidate's popularity, he was reporting on who would win the election;

Usually (but not always), the person with the most votes wins the electoral college. This has happened, I believe 5 times in American history. Is it, or is it not more logical that a person that has more support would win? 

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Yeesh! And back to square one. It’s like trying to teach a monkey.

when all ten national polls you cited are incredibly close to predicting the national vote; with all either within or incredibly close the margin of error; it shows those polls are correct.

I’ve provided a pretty detailed set of reasons why those polls are accurate, and thus far every reason you’ve given to explain why they are inaccurate has been shown to be false (as I summarized).

As the national polls were broadly accurate, its reasonable to presume the opinion polls are too.

You forget to mention 9 out of 10 predicted Hillary would win; she lost, if you hadn't heard.  9 out of 10 polls being wrong doesn't induce trust in pollsters in most people.

Hasty generalization fallacy. No statistics to back it up. Also, they got pretty close to how the election would turn out in votes. 

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Yeesh! And back to square one. It’s like trying to teach a monkey.

when all ten national polls you cited are incredibly close to predicting the national vote; with all either within or incredibly close the margin of error; it shows those polls are correct.

I’ve provided a pretty detailed set of reasons why those polls are accurate, and thus far every reason you’ve given to explain why they are inaccurate has been shown to be false (as I summarized).

As the national polls were broadly accurate, its reasonable to presume the opinion polls are too.

You forget to mention 9 out of 10 predicted Hillary would win; she lost, if you hadn't heard.  9 out of 10 polls being wrong doesn't induce trust in pollsters in most people.

No they didn’t. 

9/10 predicted she would win the popular vote.

and she did.


You see, the US works under a system called the “electoral college”, where individual allot a given number of electors in a winner takes all state wide election.

as a result; of can lose the popular vote, but win the election.

The National polls aren’t directly predicting who would win, despite your asinine claims to the contrary because they aren’t attempting to poll how individual states will vote. They are directly predicting how the country as a whole would vote; and they did so pretty accurately.

The RCP national average predicted the popular vote to within 1pt, or an effective +/- of 0.5%.

that means if those pollsters conducted other national polls; for example opinion polls, one may expect them to be a broadly accurate gauge of the national mood as they were with the popular vote.

But hey, that’s reality! Reality has a well known liberal bias.

We’re liberals and our thinking that a poll predicting the exact national results of an election to within 2 PT’s is “accurate”!

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

No they didn’t. 

9/10 predicted she would win the popular vote.

and she did.


You see, the US works under a system called the “electoral college”, where individual allot a given number of electors in a winner takes all state wide election.

as a result; of can lose the popular vote, but win the election.

The National polls aren’t directly predicting who would win, despite your asinine claims to the contrary because they aren’t attempting to poll how individual states will vote. They are directly predicting how the country as a whole would vote; and they did so pretty accurately.

The RCP national average predicted the popular vote to within 1pt, or an effective +/- of 0.5%.

that means if those pollsters conducted other national polls; for example opinion polls, one may expect them to be a broadly accurate gauge of the national mood as they were with the popular vote.

But hey, that’s reality! Reality has a well known liberal bias.

We’re liberals and our thinking that a poll predicting the exact national results of an election to within 2 PT’s is “accurate”!

They most certainly did!!!  They predicted Hillary would win the election.  Nate Silver reported on "Who will win the presidency".  All of the polls were predicting who would win the election.  And 9 out of 10 of the polls were WRONG.  Political polls aren't simply popularity polls.  No one cares who is more popular!!  I, of course, know about the electoral college; too bad the pollsters didn't know anything about it.  Maybe if they had taken the time to learn something about the US political process, they could have come up with polls that weren't fatally flawed. 

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Hasty generalization fallacy. No statistics to back it up. Also, they got pretty close to how the election would turn out in votes. 

The statistics, in fact, the polls have been posted in this thread already.  9 out of 10 polls were wrong.

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Usually (but not always), the person with the most votes wins the electoral college. This has happened, I believe 5 times in American history. Is it, or is it not more logical that a person that has more support would win? 

I guess it depends on the election system in question.  5 times out of 45 is more than 10% of the time.  I consider that rather significant.  Since the US doesn't use a strict popular vote system, it's pretty to rely strictly on the popular vote.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Hasty generalization fallacy. No statistics to back it up. Also, they got pretty close to how the election would turn out in votes. 

The statistics, in fact, the polls have been posted in this thread already.  9 out of 10 polls were wrong.

That.

is.

a.

lie.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

No they didn’t. 

9/10 predicted she would win the popular vote.

and she did.


You see, the US works under a system called the “electoral college”, where individual allot a given number of electors in a winner takes all state wide election.

as a result; of can lose the popular vote, but win the election.

The National polls aren’t directly predicting who would win, despite your asinine claims to the contrary because they aren’t attempting to poll how individual states will vote. They are directly predicting how the country as a whole would vote; and they did so pretty accurately.

The RCP national average predicted the popular vote to within 1pt, or an effective +/- of 0.5%.

that means if those pollsters conducted other national polls; for example opinion polls, one may expect them to be a broadly accurate gauge of the national mood as they were with the popular vote.

But hey, that’s reality! Reality has a well known liberal bias.

We’re liberals and our thinking that a poll predicting the exact national results of an election to within 2 PT’s is “accurate”!

They most certainly did!!!  They predicted Hillary would win the election.  Nate Silver reported on "Who will win the presidency".  All of the polls were predicting who would win the election.  And 9 out of 10 of the polls were WRONG.  Political polls aren't simply popularity polls.  No one cares who is more popular!!  I, of course, know about the electoral college; too bad the pollsters didn't know anything about it.  Maybe if they had taken the time to learn something about the US political process, they could have come up with polls that weren't fatally flawed. 

Wow.

You’re now confusing what the pundits said with what the polls said: you can’t even keep your argument straight.

I get it; you keep saying the polls were wrong, over and over again.

They weren’t: you just don’t understand what the polls means.

when a national poll shows Hillary would get 48%, and trump gets 46% it is predicting that Hillary will get 48% of the vote, and trump will get 46%. The win or loss is not predicted by the national polls. So saying they predicted a win, and she lost is comparing apples and oranges; and given the extent that you have botched every argument thus far, it seems that you don’t seem to be able to understand the things you are talking about.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Hasty generalization fallacy. No statistics to back it up. Also, they got pretty close to how the election would turn out in votes. 

The statistics, in fact, the polls have been posted in this thread already.  9 out of 10 polls were wrong.

That.

is.

a.

lie.

You.

are.

on.

drugs.

9 out of 10 polls gave the election to Hillary, and she lost.  The polls were obviously and inarguably wrong.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Hasty generalization fallacy. No statistics to back it up. Also, they got pretty close to how the election would turn out in votes. 

The statistics, in fact, the polls have been posted in this thread already.  9 out of 10 polls were wrong.

That.

is.

a.

lie.

You.

are.

on.

drugs.

9 out of 10 polls gave the election to Hillary, and she lost.

If this is your argument You simply do not understand what those polls actually meant. 

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

If this is your argument You simply do not understand what those polls actually meant.

It's hard to misunderstand "Who will win the presidency".

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

If this is your argument You simply do not understand what those polls actually meant.

It's hard to misunderstand "Who will win the presidency".

Well it obviously is not hard to misunderstand  because that’s not what they mean.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Well it obviously is not hard to misunderstand  because that’s not what they mean.

You'll notice it doesn't say "who is more popular".

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

If this is your argument You simply do not understand what those polls actually meant.

It's hard to misunderstand "Who will win the presidency".

Is it logical to assume that if you win the people and the popular vote, you would win the presidency? This usually happens. 

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Usually (but not always), the person with the most votes wins the electoral college. This has happened, I believe 5 times in American history. Is it, or is it not more logical that a person that has more support would win? 

I guess it depends on the election system in question.  5 times out of 45 is more than 10% of the time.  I consider that rather significant.  Since the US doesn't use a strict popular vote system, it's pretty to rely strictly on the popular vote.

There were way more than 45 elections. Factor in two terms and all. 

Fun Fact: 45 presidents yet only 44 people held the position

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Well it obviously is not hard to misunderstand  because that’s not what they mean.

That is not any one of the 9 polls, you said were wrong. You’re now changing the subject and talking about a completely different thing entirelyz

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Is it logical to assume that if you win the people and the popular vote, you would win the presidency? This usually happens.

No, not unless the election in question is strictly determined by popular vote.

There were way more than 45 elections. Factor in two terms and all. 

Fun Fact: 45 presidents yet only 44 people held the position

You're right, there were 56 elections.  That still works out to 9% of all elections.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Well it obviously is not hard to misunderstand  because that’s not what they mean.

That is not any one of the 9 polls, you said were wrong. You’re now changing the subject and talking about a completely different thing entirelyz

Nate Silver doesn't do his own polls.  He's a poll aggregator, and he used Real Clear Politics.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Well it obviously is not hard to misunderstand  because that’s not what they mean.

That is not any one of the 9 polls, you said were wrong. You’re now changing the subject and talking about a completely different thing entirelyz

Nate Silver doesn't do his own polls.  He's a poll aggregator, and he used Real Clear Politics.

And?

You’re not talking about those 9 polls any more; you’re talking about Nate Silvers prediction of the Election.

This is getting idiotic now. 

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

And?

You’re not talking about those 9 polls any more; you’re talking about Nate Silvers prediction of the Election.

This is getting idiotic now. 

I have news for you, it got idiotic as soon as you started arguing that 9 out of 10 polls being wrong doesn't show a fundamental flaw in polling.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

And?

You’re not talking about those 9 polls any more; you’re talking about Nate Silvers prediction of the Election.

This is getting idiotic now. 

I have news for you, it got idiotic as soon as you started arguing that 9 out of 10 polls being wrong doesn't show a fundamental flaw in polling.

Can you point out this flaw? Asserting there is a flaw without saying what it is, is an argument by assertion. They got very close (except one) of what VOTING would turn out to be!

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

Can you point out this flaw? Asserting there is a flaw without saying what it is, is an argument by assertion. They got very close (except one) of what VOTING would turn out to be!

Um, they were wrong.  As the old saying goes, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Is it logical to assume that if you win the people and the popular vote, you would win the presidency? This usually happens.

No, not unless the election in question is strictly determined by popular vote.

There were way more than 45 elections. Factor in two terms and all. 

Fun Fact: 45 presidents yet only 44 people held the position

You're right, there were 56 elections.  That still works out to 9% of all elections.

False, 58 elections. If you get half plus 1 in a state, you win the entire state (except for two (except for when electors change their vote to not represent the people)). 

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

And?

You’re not talking about those 9 polls any more; you’re talking about Nate Silvers prediction of the Election.

This is getting idiotic now. 

I have news for you, it got idiotic as soon as you started arguing that 9 out of 10 polls being wrong doesn't show a fundamental flaw in polling.

They weren’t wrong. You keep saying they are because you dont understand what the polls meant.

Let’s break it down to even a level you can understand.

if a poll says Hillary will get 48% of the vote, +\- 3%, and trump will get 45% of the vote +\- 3%, If Hillary won 48% of the vote, and trump wins
46% of the vote. That poll is within its margin of error and therefore correct; no matter how much you want to yell otherwise.

you don’t seem to understand that a national poll that says says clinton 48, trump 46 isn’t predicting clinton will win the election, it’s predicting she would win 48% of the vote: which she did.

this is such basic logic, that your constant failure to understand even the basic principles here is pretty daming.

Pogue

CYDdharta said:

Pogue said:

Can you point out this flaw? Asserting there is a flaw without saying what it is, is an argument by assertion. They got very close (except one) of what VOTING would turn out to be!

Um, they were wrong.  As the old saying goes, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I have already stated why the popular vote does play a role in the elections. @Gooberry ;already explained how polls work so no need for me to do it. They got the popular vote almost on point. 

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

They weren’t wrong. You keep saying they are because you dont understand what the polls meant.

Let’s break it down to even a level you can understand.

if a poll says Hillary will get 48% of the vote, +\- 3%, and trump will get 45% of the vote +\- 3%, If Hillary won 48% of the vote, and trump wins
46% of the vote. That poll is within its margin of error and therefore correct; no matter how much you want to yell otherwise.

you don’t seem to understand that a national poll that says says clinton 48, trump 46 isn’t predicting clinton will win the election, it’s predicting she would win 48% of the vote: which she did.

this is such basic logic, that your constant failure to understand even the basic principles here is pretty daming.

No, you are wrong, as were the polls.  The polls were a prediction OF WHO WOULD WIN THE ELECTION.  They were not popularity polls.  No one gives a rats about popularity, just who will win an election.  If the polls were just about who was more popular, there would be no need to ask if respondents were registered voters, much less likely voters. 

What's worth more, a poll that is right, or a poll that is arguably to the actual issue but is wrong?

CYDdharta

Pogue said:

I have already stated why the popular vote does play a role in the elections. @Gooberry ;already explained how polls work so no need for me to do it. They got the popular vote almost on point. 

...and I have already stated why the popular vote means nothing.  That's not how these polls are used.  They are used, just as Nate Silver did, to predict who would win the election.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

They weren’t wrong. You keep saying they are because you dont understand what the polls meant.

Let’s break it down to even a level you can understand.

if a poll says Hillary will get 48% of the vote, +\- 3%, and trump will get 45% of the vote +\- 3%, If Hillary won 48% of the vote, and trump wins
46% of the vote. That poll is within its margin of error and therefore correct; no matter how much you want to yell otherwise.

you don’t seem to understand that a national poll that says says clinton 48, trump 46 isn’t predicting clinton will win the election, it’s predicting she would win 48% of the vote: which she did.

this is such basic logic, that your constant failure to understand even the basic principles here is pretty daming.

No, you are wrong, as were the polls.  The polls were a prediction OF WHO WOULD WIN THE ELECTION.  They were not popularity polls.  No one gives a rats about popularity, just who will win an election.  If the polls were just about who was more popular, there would be no need to ask if respondents were registered voters, much less likely voters. 

No, I’m not wrong, the polls weren’t wrong. Shouting at me, and continually not understanding anything about what the polls mean doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes you look .

A national presidential poll asks people, generally, “if the election were held today, who would you vote for?”. They then appropriately adjust, weight and tabulate the results to adjust for sampling, (too many women, men, etc) and generate a number indicating what percentage of voters would vote for Hillary, and what percentage of voters would vote for trump.

To say a national presidential poll means something other than that, is a lie.

To say a national presidential poll is a direct prediction of who will win, is also a lie: it can only be used indirectly.

To say a presidential poll like this that shows Hilary getting a higher percentage than trump indicates Hillary would win the election, is also a lie: that’s not what the number means.

to say any of those 10 polls were highly inaccurate, is a lie. All but 3 were within the margin of error, and none were extremely off.

to say any of those 10 polls were far outside their margin of error, is also a lie.

To claim that Nate silvers “75% chance of victory” is the same thing as these polls, is also a lie.

So please, get a grip, and start trying to learn what it is your talking about before spewing and unending tirade of false claims, and incorrect assertions.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

No, I’m not wrong, the polls weren’t wrong. Shouting at me, and continually not understanding anything about what the polls mean doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes you look .

A national presidential poll asks people, generally, “if the election were held today, who would you vote for?”. They then appropriately adjust, weight and tabulate the results to adjust for sampling, (too many women, men, etc) and generate a number indicating what percentage of voters would vote for Hillary, and what percentage of voters would vote for trump.

To say a national presidential poll means something other than that, is a lie.

To say a national presidential poll is a direct prediction of who will win, is also a lie: it can only be used indirectly.

To say a presidential poll like this that shows Hilary getting a higher percentage than trump indicates Hillary would win the election, is also a lie: that’s not what the number means.

to say any of those 10 polls were highly inaccurate, is a lie. All but 3 were within the margin of error, and none were extremely off.

to say any of those 10 polls were far outside their margin of error, is also a lie.

To claim that Nate silvers “75% chance of victory” is the same thing as these polls, is also a lie.

So please, get a grip, and start trying to learn what it is your talking about before spewing and unending tirade of false claims, and incorrect assertions.

No, you are still WRONG!!  A presidential election poll IS NOT A POPULARITY POLL!!  To say that's all a presidential election poll is IS A LIE!!  It is a POLL TO DETERMINE WHO WILL WIN AN ELECTION.  The polls were quite obviously improperly weighted (read fatally flawed) to determine the election, which was their only reason for being.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

No, I’m not wrong, the polls weren’t wrong. Shouting at me, and continually not understanding anything about what the polls mean doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes you look .

A national presidential poll asks people, generally, “if the election were held today, who would you vote for?”. They then appropriately adjust, weight and tabulate the results to adjust for sampling, (too many women, men, etc) and generate a number indicating what percentage of voters would vote for Hillary, and what percentage of voters would vote for trump.

To say a national presidential poll means something other than that, is a lie.

To say a national presidential poll is a direct prediction of who will win, is also a lie: it can only be used indirectly.

To say a presidential poll like this that shows Hilary getting a higher percentage than trump indicates Hillary would win the election, is also a lie: that’s not what the number means.

to say any of those 10 polls were highly inaccurate, is a lie. All but 3 were within the margin of error, and none were extremely off.

to say any of those 10 polls were far outside their margin of error, is also a lie.

To claim that Nate silvers “75% chance of victory” is the same thing as these polls, is also a lie.

So please, get a grip, and start trying to learn what it is your talking about before spewing and unending tirade of false claims, and incorrect assertions.

No, you are still WRONG!!  A presidential election poll IS NOT A POPULARITY POLL!!  To say that's all a presidential election poll is IS A LIE!!  It is a POLL TO DETERMINE WHO WILL WIN AN ELECTION.  The polls were quite obviously improperly weighted (read fatally flawed) to determine the election, which was their only reason for being.

That’s not an argument, that is a tirade of assertions.

if at any point you want to answer my posts; which explains in detail why you’re wrong, please do so.

The presidential polls were broadly correct, and I’ve explained why. All you’ve done is pretend they didn’t mean what they did, deliberately misunderstand what they mean, then stick your finger in your ears.

Vaulk

CYDdharta said:

LOL, none of the other polls show him at such a low level.  In fact, Rasmussen has Trump in positive territory at 51%.  Polls have proven to be unreliable, consistently underrating him.  If they were accurate, he wouldn't have won the election in the first place.

This is essentially the entirety of the legitimate argument right here.  The same source that provided the poll that the OP is talking about is the source that made it abundantly clear that not only would Trump not be president, but Hillary had the election in the bag before it even started.  CNN went as far as to ridicule the possibility of Trump being elected and traveled to the bottom of the rabbit hole to declare their supreme certainty that Trump would never...ever be president.

Well folks we all saw how that turned out.  CNN is an embarrassment to the News media and these days they're more useful for entertainment than the news.  If an immigrant crossed the border tomorrow and asked me what news channel he should watch for accurate information about current affairs in the U.S., I'd tell him to watch The Colbert Report before I'd recommend CNN.